Wondering the same.
Probably because "recycling ships" is so "unprofitable" that the ships get sent to Africa or Indonesia and cut into pieces by "slave workers".
Retarded economy we are living in
How can it be cheaper to literally sink a ship than recycling thousands of tons of steel and iron?
And how relevant is that?
Spain got deforested by the Romans, 2000 years ago.
And? How is that relevant for todays CO2 problems?
In most societies kids are not driven to school.
And still if they were: it is up to the parents/drivers to use an EV or not.
Income per capita in USD is completely irrelevant when you live in a completely different economy.
Free health care is a point.
How many beers, pizza, bread, noodles or eggs you can buy per month is relevant.
How much of your income you spent (in percent) for your apartment, is relevant.
How much a car costs, how much you pay for your kids schools is relevant: all in percentages of your income.
How much I earn a day, and how much I pay for my living from that is relevant.
Basically it comes down to:
How much is housing
How much is clothing
How much is food
How much is education
How much is health care
How much is pension
And: how much is left at the end of the month, to save to make holiday next year.
Chinese have no problem paying all that and having enough to have a nice holiday trip with the whole family every year.
However, when forests are cleared or burned, carbon stored in plants and the soil is released, and these figures are not included.
That was not clear from your previous post.
It sounded you are accusing China doing deforestation in a meaningful amount.
The point is, there are classically three levels:
1) baseload
2) load following
3) peakers
And #1 and #3 are way way apart from each other.
However most modern grids get rid of "baseload", as with intermittent supplies that makes no sense anymore.
No one agrees.
Are you getting senile or you have Alzheimer?
They do not need to supply "the rest of Europe".
The power loss in Spain was France's fault.
And has nothing to do with renewables.
Again one of your stupid nonsense posts.
Flight alone is close to 2% world wide emissions. That would actually be neglectable, if it was not about the height at which the planes fly.
Then all the other transportation comes on top.
In Germany total CO2 emissions by transport is 23%.
And your country: is far worse.
but they'll still go and have two or three kids. In absolute terms those two or three kids are the biggest factor.
No they are not.
When the kids are grown up, there won't be any ordinary ICE cars anymore.
Energy production will likely be 100% green.
Kids are not polluting the planet. Grand parents and parents did, and are still doing it.
2. the new power stations are being used as peakers, not for baseload
That is called: load following. Not "peakers".
If you want to point the finger do so, but point it at Gerhard Schroeder and Helmut Kohl, and note that both were from opposing political parties and both of them championed the end of the nuclear industry in Germany through systemic underinvestment.
That is double wrong.
Actually tripple wrong.
a) it is not the role of the government to invest into nuclear, so there is no underfunding. The plants made absurd earnings - why can the owner not invest himself?
b) Kohl was pro nuclear, but it was not his job to plan for investments - he was the farking Chancellor, not a industrial leader or policy maker for energy
c) Schroeder, Kuehnast, Tritin etc. got explicitly voted into office to exit nuclear power
Schroeder and co did their job. And Merkel, the traitor, reverted it.
This was basically the first time in German history, that a follow up government reverted the previous government's policies. On top of that: the enourmous win in the lections was about the question: to exit nuclear power for good!
What do you think how betrayed we Germans felt when she suddenly stood up and said: oh, btw. I will extend the life for all current reactors by 30 years!?
It took Fukushima, which made Merkel realize: if she does not follow the original plan, and hurry up, she has riots in the streets. No next Chancellorship.
On top of that: she also torpedoed the green revolution. Otherwise Germany's electricity would be 100% green since decades!
That is incorrect.
The shift was from Nuclear to renewables.
However Merkel torpedoed both, the nuclear exist, and the switch to renewables.
It is Merkle's fault that Germany (especially in Bavaria) build new gas plants. not Schroeder's
That decision was taken after the tsunami wrecked Fukushima and that happened in March 2011
That is wrong.
The original legislative vote took place on December 14, 2001, when the German Bundestag approved the plan to shut down all of the country's nuclear power plants within approximately 20 years.
Merkel reverted that vote.
And after Fukushima, she regretted it, and re-installed the exit.
It will be a long time before they have our average standard of living also.
They have the same standard of living as Europeans and are far beyond Americans since decades.
Under which rock do YOU live?
Real wealth can only increase. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
